it. just. kept. going.

He certainly isn’t paid by the interesting.

Can anyone confirm if Haisley is paid by the word?

this stuff isn’t very offensive upon first taste, and isn’t very interesting thereafter.

It wasn’t a vote. It was a poll. As I understand it, it made no pretense of being the actual binding process by which the winner would be decided.

Man, I kept reading this hoping for some kind of through-line or identifiable argument, but the thesis here seems to be “the movies I don’t like are stupid.” Which is a valid enough argument (most of us have probably made it at least once or twice), but probably doesn’t need 3,000 words to be made. Which is especially…

Or sometimes being good is enough, when a better team forgets how to field ground balls and throw 90 feet.

“I challenged the mortals of Miðgarðr, if they have a problem with that, then they can meet me on the other side of Bifröst in the All Father’s realm”

That’s not an employee of 38 Studios. She works for the state of Rhode Island (see her email signature, indicating she works for RIEDC, the state entity that gave out the loan.)

But, it is different. Pulling a piece because it spoke ill of an advertiser is NOT the same thing as pulling a post because it contains nothing of legitimate public interest and it exposes embarrassing personal information about a private individual for no reason other than Gawker doesn’t like Reddit.

I think your example is a little off-point. Let’s say that you submit a design to a client for a building made of balsa wood 150 stories tall with a dynamite factory on the first floor, and for some reason, your supervisor agrees that this is a fantastic idea. The marketing department hears from the client that they…

I don’t believe leaving it up would be immoral. I think posting it was profoundly shitty, but once it’s up, there’s no undoing it. Literally 100% of what’s accomplished by removing it is distancing Gawker Media from it and protecting Gawker’s front page for advertisers. I genuinely believe—and I have reason to believe…

You cannot possibly be this obtuse (O, who am I kidding—intentional obtuseness seems to be a job requirement for Gawker properties).

You know how after a mass shooting there will always be someone from the NRA that says “it’s the wrong time to talk about gun control” but the right time is never defined? Gawker will never have a ‘right time’ to talk about the context of that article.

Wait so the guy who has written critical pieces on how the media (In particular Stephen A. Smith and Katie Couric) have covered Floyd Mayweather doesn’t want us to be critical of a journalist who committed a major fuck up simply because he’s friends with said journalist???? Ok.

But this isn’t the first time Gawker Media has stumbled back into hypocrisy when called out. Jezebel posts article after article about women who refuse to call themselves feminists but when it is called out about shitty behavior (like posting rape videos) falls back on the ‘oh, but we’re not feminist’ as the excuse.…

SIDEBAR: Everyone seems so enchanted by the victimhood of having the Big Bad Internet Bullies out to get them that they cant see or admit that almost all of the criticsm is from longtime readers and commenters who are just completely disgusted by the post and, I think, even more disgusted by all the responses and…

“Years later, David Geithner’s children would look back on the day that ruined their family forever and remark that it wasn’t a total loss - ‘a bunch of awful people realized the value of friendship, at least.’ ”

You're like the Hamilton Nolan of milk. That's not a good thing.

If you're trying to be funny, it's kinda lame. If you're trying to be serious... it's kinda lame. Sorry love.